MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1968023441 · doi:10.5555/2818754.2818831

DASE: document-assisted symbolic execution for improving automated software testing

2015· article· en· W1968023441 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware Testing and Debugging Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSymbolic executionComputer scienceDocumentationHeuristicsSoftwareProgramming languageFocus (optics)Software bugStatic analysisSoftware engineeringData miningOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract—We propose and implement a new approach, Document-Assisted Symbolic Execution (DASE), to improve auto-mated test generation and bug detection. DASE leverages natural language processing techniques and heuristics to analyze pro-gram documentation to extract input constraints automatically. DASE then uses the input constraints to guide symbolic execution to focus on inputs that are semantically more important. We evaluated DASE on 88 programs from 5 mature real-world software suites: COREUTILS, FINDUTILS, GREP, BINUTILS, and ELFTOOLCHAIN. DASE detected 12 previously unknown bugs that symbolic execution without input constraints failed to detect, 6 of which have already been confirmed by the developers. In addition, DASE increases line coverage, branch coverage, and call coverage by 14.2–120.3%, 2.3–167.7%, and 16.9–135.2% respectively, which are 6.0–21.1 percentage points (pp), 1.6–18.9 pp, and 2.8–20.1 pp increases. The accuracies of input constraint extraction are 97.8–100%. I.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.928
Threshold uncertainty score0.683

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.064
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.244 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Quick stats

Citations21
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSoftware Testing and Debugging TechniquesFrench-language works237,207